u/Unhappy-Ad4648

On one hand, Tewkesbury’s renunciation of his title and departure from the House of Lords effectively undo the events of the first film. His own grandmother had tried to kill him just to prevent him from supporting liberal reform — and now, it turns out, her wish has been partially fulfilled.

On the other hand, however, the situation is far more complex. First of all, the Representation of the People Act of 1884—the very act in question — did not grant the right to vote to the entire population; 40% of men and all women were left out. Secondly—and most importantly — the third film deals with British colonialism, an issue toward which the aristocracy is "somewhat" more favorably disposed.

Perhaps the film should have emphasized this aspect — increasing Tewkesbury’s screen time and giving him a fully developed story arc. Here is how it might look: early in the film, the viscount raises the issue of the mistreatment of the indigenous population in the House of Lords but finds no understanding among his "colleagues." This incident compounds Enola’s anxieties about her future as an aristocrat’s wife and, in turn, fuels doubts in Tewkesbury himself. And in the end, the viscount discovers that his own father—whom the first film portrayed as a liberal and a reformer, and whom he respected and looked up to — had facilitated the theft of gold from Afghanistan.

Another of the perpetrators is a close friend — and the Viscount’s own godfather. It is also worth noting that, although the criminals were arrested, the sentence handed down was surprisingly lenient (thanks to Brigadier Sampson’s connections and social standing). This proves to be the final straw. Tewkesbury realizes that the English aristocracy has reached a moral dead end and that he will achieve nothing more in the House of Lords; the other lords remain too deeply entrenched in conservatism to support his initiatives. You must admit, in that case, renouncing the title and leaving the House would have looked different. I would also like to add that leaving the House of Lords does not equate to a final exit from politics. Ernest could run for a seat in the House of Commons. Its influence grew significantly towards the end of the 19th century, and by 1910, it would take center stage. The franchise’s creators could well portray Ernest as one of the "architects" of this shift—or even as a close associate of Prime Minister Asquith (though that is still twenty years away, there is no telling what timeframe the franchise might cover).

I’m not sure the creators will go down that path. There is a risk that Ernest might overshadow the main character — his current wife. But surely they won’t turn him into a loafer. There is still a chance to come up with something worthy for him.

I'm not going into the classic period because I'm not familiar enough with it. I'm only considering the approaches of the last three showrunners: RTD, Moffat, and Chibnall.

1. Russell T. Davies—in the first season, he didn't have a clear point of view. Initially, the Doctor was ready to unleash the Gelth on the human world, even though Rose had never encountered them in her time. Because "time isn't static, it can be rewritten." But when Rose saves her father, it leads to the emergence of the Reapers, and the world and time are on the brink of disaster. RTD didn't touch on this topic in the second and third seasons. But in the fourth, he developed a more or less coherent approach. Which, in fact, I liked. Its essence can be summarized as a Spanish proverb: "And God said: take what you want, but pay for it." The greater the change, the greater the consequences. The Doctor and Donna could have saved Pompeii, but then hostile aliens would have endangered the life of all humanity. Likewise, Ten could have saved himself, but then he would have had to condemn Wilfred to death. And that he couldn't do.

I also like this approach because it emphasizes the personality and moral principles of the one trying to change fate. What are they willing to do to achieve this? Are they capable of change if the goal demands it, and accept the cost of their actions? This can be seen, for example, in "Transformers: Beast Wars." Dinobot was predicted to die in battle. He wasn't afraid of death, but he didn't want to be a slave to fate. Ultimately, he realized he could retreat and wait for his comrades. But then the Predacons would have killed all the cavemen. Dinobot couldn't allow this, so he had both a choice and a lack of it. And in "God of War: Ragnarok," we were presented with a positive side to the situation. Brief was predicted that his son would usher in the end of the world, and that Kratos himself would die. But everything turned out differently because the characters were able to change for the better. With the Tenth Doctor, if you think about it, there was both a bright and a dark side to the situation. After all, if he hadn't taken Wilfred with him and worked alone, he would likely have died forever. For this reason, I interpreted "The Waters of Mars" differently. There was nothing inherently wrong with the Doctor saving three people from the space station. Even if Adelaide's granddaughter hadn't gone into space, someone else would have. At worst, the Doctor could have sent the trio into an even more distant future. It's not the act itself that's bad, but the meaning the Doctor attached to it. He changed, completely succumbed to hubris, imagining that all time was his. And in doing so, he frightened Adelaide and forced her to rebel (although she moved too quickly from fear of death to criticism of the Doctor; in my opinion, the plot could have been written better). In any case, RTD leaned toward the idea that every action has a price. If you're not prepared to pay it, it's better to leave it as is. I like that.

During his second tenure as RTD, he didn't add much new. However, he did explain why the Doctor doesn't intervene in major conflicts or try to re-educate humanity. Because they have their own heads on their shoulders; they need to develop independently.

2. Steven Moffat—he's... rather inconsistent on this issue. Sometimes he can change the past (it's unlikely Reg Arwell would have survived if the Doctor hadn't arranged a wonderful Christmas for his family), sometimes he can't (Vincent van Gogh and Clara Oswald). It's the same with the future. The Doctor prevented his death at Lake Silencio, but didn't prevent the "Fall at Trenzalore," but even then, he got away with regeneration, not final death. He didn't undo Clara's death either, but he managed to significantly extend her life. Perhaps this stems from Moffat's inner contradiction. He was good at plots where the Doctor tries his best to change fate, but fails. But he also loves the "everyone survives" plot and even chided Davies for frequently killing off interesting characters (a remark that, incidentally, literally saved the life of Jenny, the Doctor's daughter). Deaths happen from time to time, but Russell was still more decisive about this (though by the time of his second visit, he had also noticeably softened). It's the same with major conflicts. The Doctor mostly avoids them (he simply locked Hitler in a cupboard, when he could have taken him away somewhere far away), but he did intervene once, quite successfully (the Zygons). Another case where the desire for a gripping narrative and plot twists clearly prevails over themes and ideas.

3. Chris Chibnall – with him, everything is simple and clear. He doesn't even ask whether the past and future can be changed. It doesn't matter, because "you can't." Not in the sense of "impossible," but in the sense of "we don't have the right to do that." His Doctor is essentially a policewoman (it would be strange to expect anything else from the author of "Broadchurch"). She maintains the status quo. Sometimes in rather radical ways (she facilitated the arrest of Rosa Parks and erased the memory of Noor Inayat Khan). And... I don't like this approach. I understand that Doctor Who is not a Quentin Tarantino's film, who can play with history as author please. But writers have found other plot solutions in the past. The Doctor either avoided the difficult moments from the start; or tried to change them and failed; or, perhaps, he retreated at the last moment because the price was too great. And what about here? Would history have really changed so much if Khan had lived? This is all so uncharacteristic of the Doctor. She didn't even try to find another way out. And yet, when the "Flux" destroyed half the universe, the Doctor somehow resigned herself to the situation too quickly. Although in this case, history has changed MUCH more.

This is just my opinion. Perhaps others see things differently. But I like the version that RTD came up with for the fourth season and the specials the most.

There's also the unknown character Billie Piper. And the Fourteenth Doctor is in limbo. It was previously possible to assume he would later regenerate into the Fifteenth, but the last episode cast doubt on that. Overall, there's a lot of room for interpretation. Do you think they'll use this right away? Or will they wait for the tender results and the decision of the new "creators" (the showrunner and writers)?

What would a world look like where she got everything she wanted? Are there any works on this topic?

What would a world look like where she got everything she wanted?